[p2p-research] Implications of Alpha

Sat May 9 15:52:58 CEST 2009

By open you are insisting on open as an architecture and price model.
That's fine.  I don't so insist.  Open to me serves many possible outlets
and meanings.  Open to use by the world is the first open.  A restaurant is
open.  I can't go in and use it without certain expectations (namely that I
pay) but it is open.  A club is not. I may not use it.  Barriers to access
should be minimized, but relatively low barriers are nearly as good as
purely open and free.  Why would I expect that a restaurant would be free?
Why would I expect that they not post their recipes online?  Some do.  The
point is that usage will expand to fit the space, or other models can and
will replace it.

If that is capitalism, then, yep, I'm a capitalist.  To me it is a long way
from oligarchs wielding power to disrupt the rights and privileges of others
and disproportionately consuming limited resources.

By the way, I also believe in national borders--free movement yes--but
national borders.  Open is multi-faceted is my point...it isn't binary.

Ryan Lanham

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 8:43 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's not about Alpha being closed.
>
> It is closed.
>
> However, if he was to offer it's brilliant knowledge-computational
> abilities as an API (software as a service) then that would "open it
> up" for so much more usage ....
>
> The point is that decision support software can use computational
> software like Alpha far better than humans can.
>
> And such decision support systems would be so easy to build if they
> can be built on top of Alpha.
>
> It's not about whether Alpha is open or not.
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Economically, nothing is going to be closed going forward because it
> doesn't
> > make good business sense.  Facebook is moving rapidly to being a tool
> that
> > can be embedded, used for free inside other apps, etc.
> >
> > This is why I stress P2P collaborative principles.  What is it that we
> want
> > to advocate?  There are always degrees to ideal.  What are the
> priorities?
> >
> > I welcome Alpha, and I welcome Facebook.  Not using them because they are
> > not strictly commons-based frameworks that stamp CC on bottom of them
> would
> > be ridiculous.  That said, if someone built a creative commons FB that
> > worked and was well subscribed, I'd offer it my primary allegiance.
> >
> > Ryan Lanham
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 8:24 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ok, i see. I said "open it up as a service"
> >>
> >> Did not mean to open up the software which he'll never do as that's
> >> his source of revenue (the Mathematica platform is used in Alpha)
> >>
> >> I meant to offer it up as a service, which in some context makes it a
> >> lot more open than a web app.. because it can be mashed up and/or
> >> integrated with other apps
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:22 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > Hi Ryan,
> >> >
> >> > I would agree with all points below but I'm confused as to how you
> >> > relate it to SaaS?  SaaS is not open. It can be fully closed, just
> >> > with an API. Facebook is SaaS in the sense that it offers its platform
> >> > APIs to any developer (with some stupid restrictions but it is a SaaS
> >> > platform in my view, just like Salesforce is)
> >> >
> >> > What gave you the impression that SaaS refers to open systems?
> >> >
> >> > Marc
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Marc,
> >> >>
> >> >> My own view is that open is a good, but not necessary element of
> good.
> >> >> I
> >> >> use many closed systems that I love.  Do I wish they were open?  Yes.
> >> >> Will
> >> >> they be soon?  Not likely.  So, I can live in a world of only open
> and
> >> >> limit
> >> >> my options, or I can advocate for open and try to use it where it
> makes
> >> >> sense.  Bright line morality may feel good, but it isn't reality.
> The
> >> >> world
> >> >> is a messy place.  Dialogue and collaboration happen, and
> collaboration
> >> >> entails give and take.
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe we can assume socialists are similar enough to P2P to merit
> >> >> collaboration (as Herve does) or maybe we can assume that for profit
> is
> >> >> too
> >> >> odious to work with as some no doubt do.  For me, I rule nothing out.
> >> >> Michael Albert ruling out those who do not fight capitalism from his
> >> >> forum
> >> >> is childish and counter-productive.  I understand trying to control
> >> >> discourse, but without authentic dialogue and full menagerie of all
> >> >> types of
> >> >> organizations, the best solutions will not be found.  Morality means
> >> >> balancing competing interests in my view.
> >> >>
> >> >> Mistakes are in not reasoning and in not pursuing dreams...not in
> >> >> failing to
> >> >> follow a certain prescriptive worldview.  I support P2P and advocate
> >> >> for it
> >> >> as a collaborative ideal--even as a market philosophy--I do not see
> it
> >> >> as
> >> >> exclusive, optimal at all times nor do I want it to replace all other
> >> >> forms
> >> >> of systems even in technology.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ryan Lanham
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 7:48 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It would be infinitely more useful is he'd open it up as a service
> >> >>> (software as a service, to be accessed from other Web and P2P client
> >> >>> applications.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I could think of many uses for its data collection and computational
> >> >>> capability in decision support systems as well as in any software
> that
> >> >>> needs to make decisions based on real world data.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Letting people use it directly, as opposed to having it be a backend
> >> >>> service for software developed by others, is a huge mistake, IMO.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com
> >
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> > I've been thinking about Wolfram's Alpha.  The question I'd like
> to
> >> >>> > ask
> >> >>> > him
> >> >>> > is, what will it change.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I saw JOHO's (David Weinberger's) interview.  It was fascinating.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Here's my 2 cents:  The research paper and the informing blog post
> >> >>> > may
> >> >>> > be
> >> >>> > dead.  Yes, stringing ideas together to make a point is still
> >> >>> > useful,
> >> >>> > but
> >> >>> > now anyone can answer a question properly structured.  So, ideas
> may
> >> >>> > become
> >> >>> > more changes of queries.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Another separate point, Michel recently sent around an academic
> Call
> >> >>> > for
> >> >>> > Papers for a P2P conference.  Isn't that a bit odd, inherently?  A
> >> >>> > COP
> >> >>> > on
> >> >>> > P2P?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Ryan Lanham
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >> >>> > p2presearch mailing list
> >> >>> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Marc Fawzi
> >> >>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> >> >>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Marc Fawzi
> >> > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> >> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Marc Fawzi
> >> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090509/a93e9ca2/attachment-0001.html>